It is widely proved that cancel culture is an effective way to hold individuals responsible for their actions. I partially agree with the given statement. From my point of view, cancel culture demonstrates the huge power on controlling the behavior of community groups. However, people usually don’t discuss both sides of a situation.
One significant advantage of cancel culture is the power on controlling the attitude of individuals. Public figures will less say bold, discriminatory statements. They depend on society’s support, attention and so on. As a an example , Will Smith who was cancelled by citizens because he beat Chris Rock during the Oscar. A lot of huge companies stopped contracts, projects also he left from Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
On the other hand, a major drawback is that people rarely consider both sides of situation. Cancelling depends on society’s sympathy. If public figure act wrong but have public sympathy, society will forgive his or her misconduct. For instance Chris Rock ridiculed Smith’s wife’s haircut even though she was sick. He wasn’t cancelled, although, his action was offensive too. After slap, audience see him as a victim. He gained a lot of support from people, companies and so on. Due to cancelling is selective and unfair
In conclusion, I partially agree that cancelling is effective in controlling individuals’ behaviour. However, it can be selective and unfair, because of sympathy, stereotypes and other factors. Therefore, society should form its opinion based on the whole context